JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON DEEPAK KUMAR JHA V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

RANCHI, India, Oct. 23 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 23:

1. Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar in Mohanpur P.S. Case No.150/2016, corresponding to G.R. No.724/2016 for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner has directly approached this Court against the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar.

4. The scope and ambit of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is not only confined to the correctness or legality of the order but also to its propriety. Both the Courts of Sessions and Magistrate are inferior to the High Court and Courts of Judicial Magistrate are inferior to the Court of Sessions Judge. When an order is passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the only remedy left with the aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under the said Code to question correctness, legality or propriety, but when the same is passed by a Magistrate, though power lies to both the Sessions and the High Court, but as a matter of prudence and propriety, it will be appropriate to first approach the first forum and except in rare and special circumstances to the High Court. Such special circumstances may be where the Sessions Judge has directly or indirectly participated in the enquiry or investigation or trial or through his any action or order interest of justice demands that High Court alone should interfere in the order of the learned Magistrate. Nothing special has been stated in this petition disclosing how this petition has been directly filed before the High Court. This aspect of the matter has already been decided by this Court by a reasoned order in the case of Dharam Kumar Saw @ Dharam Kr. Gupta and others v. The State of Jharkhand and another in Criminal Revision No.417 of 2023, vide order dated 11.09.2025.

5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar as no special and exceptional reasons have been assigned for filing this criminal revision petition directly in this Court.

6. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge and in that event the period taken during this revision petition will not come in the way for the purpose of limitation. The ground/plea taken by the petitioner herein, will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.